Sections

Canada slow to initiate disaster prevention programs, experts warn

A flooded downtown Calgary is seen from a aerial view of the city June 22, 2013. The floods in Alberta caused an estimated $5 billion in damage.(THE CANADIAN PRESS/Jonathan Hayward)
Photo: THE CANADIAN PRESS/Jonathan Hayward

A strategy to better protect Canadian communities from the devastation caused by natural and man-made disasters has been in a holding pattern for well over a decade, experts warn, as threats to public safety and financial burdens grow.

Fresh from a summer of unprecedented fire and flood, Federal Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney announced on Sept. 11 plans to develop a national program that would better safeguard Canadians against the ravaging effects of events such as the Alberta floods and Lac-Megantic train derailment.

But those who have spent their careers warning governments of all political stripes to prepare for the havoc posed by various threats — climate change, aging infrastructure, earthquakes, even pandemics and terrorism — point out such plans have been in the works since at least 1998 and have yet to move past the discussion stage.

“I am not optimistic that it will be different this time,” said climate scientist Gordon McBean, Western University professor and co-author of several studies on climate change. “I would very much like it to be.”

Blaney’s announcement follows a predictable pattern that arises after “focusing events” such as the Alberta flooding, McBean said, wherein there is a brief window of interest from provincial and federal leaders in creating a nationwide program to reduce the impact of disasters. Proposals typically include a national approach to infrastructure upgrades, improved communication systems and better response protocol, but so far, most remain on paper.

To wit: the plan touted by Blaney earlier this month, with no dollar figure attached, bears striking resemblance to a National Disaster Mitigation Strategy published in 2008 and available on Public Safety Canada’s website. That document was based on consultations with the provinces and territories held in 2005, which in turn followed a series of meetings held in 2002. In fact, discussions for a national program are on the public record as far back as 1998, but a coordinated, Canada-wide approach still has not been implemented.

McBean acknowledged hazards such as terrorist acts and pandemics are challenging to predict and prepare for, but the growing body of data on climate change suggests it is possible to guard against damage caused by extreme weather. This country, like others, has already seen mounting financial and social costs as a result of climate change, he said.

“Myself and most scientists like me find (the inaction) very frustrating.”

In 2012, a widely publicized report McBean co-authored for the Insurance Bureau of Canada found extreme weather cost Canadians $1.6 billion in 2011, and nearly $1 billion in each of 2010 and 2009. Meanwhile cost estimates put this summer’s Alberta floods at nearly $5 billion.

While prevention measures such as dikes and floodways are not cheap — often running into the hundreds of millions — there is a strong economic case to be made for investing up front, argues Paul Kovacs, executive director of the Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction.

“If you want to prevent billions of dollars of damage every year, you do have to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to do that,” he said, adding “a number of quality international studies” suggest every $1 Canadians spend on damage prevention reaps $4 in savings on recovery efforts.

Case studies within Canada have shown the savings can be even greater. The Red River floodway, completed in 1969 at an initial cost of $63 million and upgraded in 2005 for an additional $665 million, has prevented $40 billion in damage to the City of Winnipeg in its lifetime, according to the Manitoba government. That project was jointly financed by the provincial and federal governments.

Yet despite “the compelling economic argument” for prevention, Kovacs said sticker shock associated with those investments — which must be championed by politicians well after disasters fade from public memory — contributes to the lack of political will to resource and implement a comprehensive program.

“We don’t necessarily have to have more losses,” he said. “We know how to do it, the science is there, we just have to have the willingness to spend the money and move forwards.”

Canada’s approach to disasters has so far been piecemeal. Responsibility for emergency management is shared between the provinces, territories and the federal government, while individual communities — not to mention individual Canadians — bear the brunt of the fallout and initial response.

Approaches to mitigation efforts vary wildly across the country. Cities such as Vancouver and Calgary have taken some initiatives to guard against damage from earthquakes and flooding, respectively, while Nova Scotia has a climate change adaptation fund. Elsewhere, governments have not been as proactive. Following severe flooding in Calgary in 2005, then Alberta MLA George Groeneveld commissioned a report on what could be done to lessen the impact of future floods. That report, which made several recommendations including the cessation of development on flood-prone land, was shelved until 2012, when Premier Alison Redford revived it. Its recommendations are now being reviewed and updated.

Meanwhile, the federal government cancelled a 30-year-old program to help municipalities pay for upgrades to emergency management infrastructure in 2012, saying the goal of that program had been met.

Federal Public Safety Minister Blaney declined a request for interview, but a spokeswoman said by email Canada has “made progress against all of the goals in the National Disaster Mitigation Strategy, but there is a great deal of work left to be done.”

Following record floods in 2011, the federal government allotted $99.2 million for mitigation projects and has so far contributed $300 million to aid in recovery efforts for parts of Manitoba affected by flooding that year, she wrote, adding a federal panel on disaster risk reduction was formed in 2009 and will next meet for its annual roundtable in 2014.

Disaster mitigation projects are also eligible for funding through the $53.5 -billion Building Canada Fund, and will soon be eligible for money from the Gas Tax Fund, but it is up to provinces or municipalities to initiate action. “Under federal infrastructure programs, projects must be prioritized by the province and/or municipality.”

University of Waterloo political science professor Daniel Henstra calls that reasoning a “cop out.”

“The federal government has always been reluctant to take on a leadership or prominent central role,” he said.

Compared to countries such as the U.S., United Kingdom, New Zealand and Australia where federal governments have initiated disaster prevention programs — Canada lags, he said.

While the provinces have a “huge responsibility” in emergency management, Henstra said the federal government could initiate a cost-sharing arrangement for mitigation programs across all levels of government and clarify who is ultimately responsible for advancing the program beyond the discussion stage.

“Most of the responsibility in (the Disaster Mitigation Strategy) is delegated to what’s called ‘the senior officials responsible,’” he said. “I don’t know who that is.”

The good news, Henstra said, is that governments are talking, but if any progress is to be made on implementing the plan, it had better happen fast. The window of public attention opened by this summer’s disasters is already closing.

“That’s the problem with this type of thing: It’s in everyone’s interest, nobody is practically responsible, and attention is short.”

1998: Following flooding in Quebec’s Saguenay region, Manitoba’s Red River Basin, and the Montreal ice storm, Emergency Preparedness Canada releases a National Mitigation Policy. The document chronicles findings from national consultations, including all levels of government, experts and other stakeholders and is compiled with the Institute of Catastrophic Loss Reduction. Recommendations include: creating a natural disaster protection fund and forming a national mitigation partnership along with a secretariat “to coordinate mitigation efforts across the country.”

2002: The now-named Office of Critical Infrastructure and Emergency Preparedness compiles its National Disaster Mitigation Strategy: Towards a Canadian Approach. Touted as “a guide for deliberation” it advocates an “all-hazards” risk management plan that broadens the scope of disaster preparation to include threats such as terrorism and cyberterrorism. It advocates an accompanying research agenda.

2003: Wildfires devastate a large swath of Interior B.C. while the SARS outbreak grips Toronto.

2005: Dan Henstra and Gordon McBean publish their paper Canadian Disaster Management Policy: Moving Toward a Paradigm Shift? in the journal Canadian Public Policy. The paper warns of mounting data suggesting climate change will increasingly wreak havoc on Canadian communities and points to mitigation programs undertaken in the U.S., U.K., New Zealand and Australia as examples for preparation. That same year Calgary is besieged by floods, a resulting report recommends several steps be taken to prevent future damage, including mapping the province to determine flood-prone areas and curbing development on flood plains. The report was shelved until 2012.

2008: Public Safety Canada publishes its Disaster Mitigation Strategy. Recommendations include: setting a common vision for a national program; identifying “primary actions” to be undertaken by federal, provincial and territorial partners and improving communication and alert systems.

2009: The Auditor General of Canada releases a report criticizing Public Safety Canada for its inaction on emergency management issues. “Public Safety Canada has not exercised the leadership necessary to coordinate emergency management activities, including critical infrastructure protection in Canada,” it states.

2011: Flooding in Manitoba along the Assiniboine River causes $1.25 billion in damages, while a wildfire devastates the town of Slave Lake, Alta.

2012: The Harper government cancels the 30-year-old Joint Emergency Preparedness Program, which provided money to municipalities for emergency response measures such as purchasing new generators or upgrading emergency response equipment. A government spokeswoman told Postmedia News at the time that the original objectives of the program — which was to enhance emergency response and preparation — had been met.

July: Lac-Megantic train derailment kills 47 people. Damage to the Quebec town will likely cost hundreds of millions of dollars.

September: Federal Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney announces plans to form a National Disaster Mitigation program after meeting with provincial and territorial ministers responsible for public safety. No timeline or dollar figure is attached to the strategy.

Jessica is the 2013-14 Michelle Lang Fellow with Postmedia News. She's on a one-year adventure working out of Ottawa and Calgary covering national politics, news and chipping away at a special project... read more on the relationship between work and personal identity in Canada's rapidly changing economy.View author's profile